Talk:Pyrrhic Victory
Summary Grounds for removal of my proposed plot section for this article: "that seems more like a summary not the whole plot of the mission imo". I'm afraid I don't understand this logic. When I wrote the new plot section, I corrected several grammatical errors, made what I deemed important clarifications, and merely patchworked the old writing for the necessary improvements. In most instances I quite literally took the old facts and just gave it a more stylish finish. As a lurker for many weeks prior, I consistently found the original revision unclear and - if I may add - most ungratifying to read. Thanks, --Emperor of Trebizond (talk) 21:13, November 21, 2013 (UTC) :This is where I'd say we come to a compromise with it. The articles have to present the information, and although you shortened it, it doesn't really need to be "stylish". I'm not the best to talk about with summaries, so maybe I was wrong to undo your edit, but I do know the information needs to be presented as if the player doesn't know everything completely, and didn't immediately know everything (Like the radio operator being Menendez, which is unknown during the mission, which is why it was referred to as "later revealed to be"). I'd rather we have someone else that completely is an expert with summaries come in. 21:21, November 21, 2013 (UTC) ::That doesn't really make any sense. I liked Emperor's edits. Joe Copp 21:22, November 21, 2013 (UTC) :::Like I said, I'm not an expert in this field, so I guess I'm in the wrong for undoing it. Hence why I put "imo", it didn't feel completely well, "complete" to me, but I don't want to start War Rooms about plot summaries. 21:26, November 21, 2013 (UTC) ::::I put the new revision back up; give it some time for other editors to see it and evaluate. Maybe they will have constructive suggestions. Deathman, if you or anybody else has a problem with specific tweaks please don't hesitate to bring them up here. --Emperor of Trebizond (talk) 21:33, November 21, 2013 (UTC) Jamba I'm honestly surprised that nobody else who played the first mission noticed that it was set at Jamba, Angola. Because it occupied such a prominent position on the map in that one scene during Woods' monologue, I may have jumped to conclusions that everybody noticed. Perhaps this deserves a mention in the trivia section so less attentive gamers will have some clue what we're talking about. Thanks, --Emperor of Trebizond (talk) 21:36, November 21, 2013 (UTC) Removal of trivia I don't want to open this can of worms, but there are three pieces of trivia removed from the section in the article - I feel that everybody has a right to know why. They are as follows: *Woods' closing statement ("You can't kill me") is a reference to a similar line directed to the VC Bookie in Call of Duty: Black Ops. Why doesn't this deserve to be in the article? He said the exact same thing in the first game. Is it implausible to consider this a reference? *Although the Eland is an effective tank destroyer, their crews only engage MPLA infantry and discharge HE (high-explosive) shells during Savimbi's assault. Unwilling or unable to fire back, many of the armored cars are eventually knocked out by T-62s. We've discussed this on the Eland-90 page before. You can tell the thing has a 90mm cannon. That's not RL info. People can actually see this in the game. A 90mm gun is capable of damaging a T-62. This makes any vehicle in the game with a 90mm gun - especially in levels where tanks are involved - a possible tank destroyer. And I've played the level several times merely to observe the vehicle in action. The cars never aim for the tanks (or MG trucks, for that matter), only for MPLA infantry. And when the T-62s start firing, some of the first targets they knock out are Elands. This despite the fact that we're discussing a chassis with a 90mm antitank cannon here. If you watch them fire at the MPLA infantry, the shells being discharged are clearly HE. Watch the effect of the explosion and gauge the range. *When Woods describes how the CIA found where he was being held prisoner in the last cutscene before the first gameplay, he mentions a C-130. However, the plane seen is a C-17 with propellers instead of turbofan engines. They used a C-17 Globemaster model in a scene where it was described as a "C-130". That sounds like an interesting piece of trivia to me - certainly more worthwhile than some of the others included in the section. Thanks, --Emperor of Trebizond (talk) 13:52, December 21, 2013 (UTC) :If it's up to me the first and second points out of the three can stay, although the third I removed; it's not very notable if the voice and the image in a cutscene accidentally contradict, not the mention that since C-17 is not also seen anywhere in the game, or series for that matter until CoDG, it partially falls under COD:IRL. Also, as for the points I removed in a later edit, they were either not notable (reused assets, too miscellaneous, questioning scripted events) or untrue. 14:13, December 21, 2013 (UTC) The quote isn't a reference, it can easily be a catch phrase that Woods uses. And the fact that the Eland-90 has a 90-mm cannon in game but doesn't use it against tanks doesn't mean anything. Some weapons have slings on them, should we mention that's the reason that the weapons appear on player's backs? No. And it's not stated in game that is truly a 90 mm cannon. CoD isn't exactly known for accurate weapon and vehicle representation. Besides it even says, "Although fairly ineffectual against opposing T-62 tanks..." on the Eland-90 page, making the trivia point false and thus it doesn't belong on the page. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 02:59, December 22, 2013 (UTC) :It deserves a mention for the benefit of the reader because Elands had a very famous reputation RL as tank destroyers in Angola. The AML-90 car they were based on were designed as light patrol vehicles. When the South Africans built the Eland, it was a multipurpose scout car intended to be used as an assault gun or tank killer due to the shortage of SA tanks. Between 1975 and 1990 the same gun one sees in this game accounted for over 100 Cuban and Angolan tanks, including T-34s, T-55s, and T-62s. How does one know it's a 90mm gun? Well, you're right - we don't know absolutely 100% for certain. But I understand if something RL is close enough to something in the game, we can make a logical assumption thereof in the light of overwhelming evidence such as: the very distinctive double baffle muzzle-brake we see on UNITA's Elands is a GIAT type only installed on 90mm guns. One sees them on light tanks, armoured cars, and APCs of French origin built between 1957 and 1978. I don't think it's even possible to fit that 'cheese grater' CN90F1-F3 model on anything lighter than a 90mm, and anything heavier (like a GIAT 105mm) always has a single-baffle muzzle brake. The fact that this particular design feature is utterly unique to 90mm weapons RL should be proof enough for you. And something as heavy as a 90mm can damage any tank of any era (to varying degrees), unless CoD also violates the rules of physics. :You cited the Eland-90 article as mentioning "although fairly ineffectual against opposing T-62 tanks..." Yes, that's true. In fact, I wrote that line. The Elands are fairly ineffectual against T-62 tanks because they aren't used against T-62 tanks! It's the only big-gunned armour Savimbi has, and he never deploys it against the enemy armour - for obvious gameplay reasons. If Elands started knocking out the T-62s, what would anybody need Hudson's chopper for? You'll also notice that the Eland-90 article (indeed, its very title) indicates the vehicle has a 90mm gun. The description box denotes it as a GT-2, which was the South African version of the CN90F1. :Thanks, --Emperor of Trebizond (talk) 20:33, December 24, 2013 (UTC)